Why 24 bit 192kHz?

[doggiehowser]

This is from an MQA presentation.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_wxRGiBoJg[/ame]

But it does try to explain why our brain can perceive and react on sound transients in as short a time frame that even 96kHz samples cannot fully capture.

Also talks about how even as we age, our perception of audio signals is not "halved" because the perception is less linear and logarithmic.

[Cohibaman]

That's a pretty good primer for someone trying to understand digital basics as well as hearing in general.

[House de Kris]

Nice video, given in a calm and non-threatening demeanor. I'll emulate the "broken record" and state that it is not without its factual errors. First is the timing limitations of CD audio. This is parroted all too often on the Internet. People do a good job of describing 44.1kHz 1-bit timing resolution, and somehow forget they are supposed to be discussing 44.1kHz 16-bit timing resolution (which has way under 1usec of resolution). Next is the odd-ball coment that 20-bit is not a power of two! What does he think "2 to the power of 20" means? I know, I know, he really meant it doesn't fall into 8-bit word lengths conveniently, but still he said it.

I couldn't get part two to work. I clicked on the link in YouTube, but it said it was private. Anyone else have this issue? Or, should I try it again?

[House de Kris]

Good news, there's a new version which corrects one of my complaints. In the original, at around 14:37, he says:

"Unfortunately, computers need to work with powers of two, which 20 isn't. And that's why high rez files use 24 bits."

This has been corrected to:

"Unfortunately computers need to work with bytes, groups of 8 bits. So it was either 16 or 24 bits."

One blunder corrected, I doubt, though, that fixing the other one (which is a widely held belief), will happen anytime soon.